DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed May 18th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended.
The Section 103 rejections made in the Office action mailed February 4th, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment. However, upon further search and consideration, at least one new ground(s) of rejection has been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 18th, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 11-12, 15-18, & 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “so as to form a compositional gradient between the first-first layer and the first-second layer” is not clearly taught by the specification. While there is a teaching of “interstitial penetration” and “induc[ed] atomic diffusion between dissimilar materials at a layer interface of different layers through rolling” and while that may implicitly impart a compositional gradient as claimed, it is not clearly set forth enough within the specification so as to become a claimable limitation.
Therefore, the claim will be interpreted broadly, such prior art disclosing diffusion bonding (i.e. such as clad and/or roll bonding) setting forth any inter-diffusion of the atoms without adhesive will be considered as meeting the limitation.
Claims 11-12, 15-18, and 21-28 are rejected for being dependent, either directly or indirectly, on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 11-12, 14, 17-18, 21, 23, & 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/00319672 A1) (hereinafter “Kim 2020”) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0141419 A1) (hereinafter “Wang 1”), optionally as evidenced by Khan et al. (Roll Bonding Processes: State-of-the-Art and Future Perspectives), and in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0165447 A1) (hereinafter “Wang 2”), BYU Cleanroom (Wet Chemical Etching of Metals and Semiconductors) (hereinafter “BYU”), and as evidenced by or further in view of Koyaizu et al. (JP 2000-345373 A) (hereinafter “Koyaizu”).
Regarding claims 1, 11, 14, 17-18, 23, and 27-28, Kim 2020 teaches a folding thermally conductive support member, foldable about a folding axis (All Figs. [A]) within the hinge area (All Figs. [h3]) flanked by first and second non-folding areas (All Figs. [h1/h2]), the support member comprising a thermally conductive metal (first) layer (All Figs. [450]), a polymer (second) member (All Figs. [440]), and an adhesive (third) layer (All Figs. [P3]) disposed between and bonding the first metal and polymer layers, wherein the metal layer comprises a plurality of through holes in the hinge area, the holes having linear sidewalls (Fig. 7F) and is formed of at least one of copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), stainless steel (SUS), or clad (no adhesive), for example a stacking member of SUS (first-first layer) and Al (first-second layer) alternately disposed, and is used to reinforce the display and dissipate heat from the display [0083].
However, the support layer holes are not taught to have first portion within the first-first layer having a curved inner surface and having a width that gradually decreases along a vertical direction toward the first-second layer and a second portion within the first-second layer having a curved inner surface and having a width that gradually decreases along a vertical direction toward the first-first layer, such that a minimum width is at an interfacial region comprising inter-diffused atoms of the different metals from the first-first layer and the first-second layer and a maximum width at a first surface and/or second surface of the support layer.
Wang 1 teaches a display screen disposed on a metal support plate, which may further comprise a polymer insulating layer therebetween [0018, 0094-0095], wherein the metal support plate comprises a plurality of deformation holes therethrough (Figs. 4 [131]) in a bending/folding region that allow for the display screen to be curved/folded/bent [0080, 0083, 0100-0101], wherein the bilayer metal support plate comprises a support metal layer (first-first layer) (Figs. 4 [15]), such as stainless steel with a thickness of 0.015 to 0.5 mm, comprising a higher hardness and strength than a heat dissipation metal layer (Figs. 4 [16]) having a higher thermal conductivity coefficient, such as copper or aluminum with a thickness of 0.04 to 0.5 mm [0085, 0087-0088], wherein the layers are integrated without an adhesive layer into one body by ones of metal bonds or lattice mutual compatibility via a rolling process [0092], wherein Kahn evidences that roll bonding processes forming clads are reliant on an interfacial region comprising the inter-diffusion of atomic metals that extend different distances into the opposing metal material (gradients) driven by heat treatment during and/or after rolling [pg. 5, 2.3. Bond Formation Mechanisms; pg. 7, 3.1.4. Heat Treatment; pgs. 8-10, 3.3.1. Microstructural Characterization].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a metal support member/plate comprising a first-first metal support layer and first-second metal heat dissipating layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide different materials for the metal support member/plate according to different needs, already desired by Kim, the arrangement providing sufficient support below the display screen while also facilitating uniform dispersion of heat and avoiding heat concentration under the display panel [Wang; 0085-0086].
Wang 2 teaches a foldable metal support layer in a device, wherein the hole sidewalls are not perpendicular to the metal layer plane enhancing folding/bending performance via stress release at a convex portion [0008, 0015, 0045-0046], wherein holes that are axisymmetric and gradually tapered from both sides so as to be gradually reduced in width with a minimum forming convex portions peaking at a central (neutral) plane (Fig. 6) or centrally offset-axis plate (Fig. 7), wherein increasing dispersal of stress would have increased the desired stress release and allowed for further improvement in stress dispersal [0009, 0052-0053], formed by masking and etching steps sequential and alternating from a first side to a second side of the of the metal layer [0070-0071], wherein the both the axisymmetric and non-axisymmetric holes are formed by a first masked wet etching process having a controlled composition/concentration, time, and, contact method at one side to form a first slope on the sidewall and a second etching process on the other side after the first to form a second hollow portion having a second slope that meets and communicates with the first portion to form a convex sidewall [0070-0071], wherein Koyaizu evidences/further teaches a wet etching method of forming uniform holes in a thin metal plate by forming masking and etching steps sequential and alternating from a first side to a second side of the of the metal plate improved over single step etching, which inherently/obviously provide gradually curved walls extending from each surface defining a convex portion at the center forming a minimum width.
BYU teaches that different metals have different wet etching processes, such as different etchants and/or processing conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the clad/stacked bilayer metal layer with openings having curved surface inner walls forming the first and second portions corresponding to the first-first and first-second dissimilar metal layers, such that the minimum width would be at the atomically inter-diffused interfacial region of the clad/stacked bilayer metal layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to design the inner surface of each of a plurality of through holes, wherein the curved surface convex portion is formed inherently via the two-stage wet etching process as set forth/desired by Wang 2, which would have allowed for differing etching treatments of the differing metal layers [Koyaizu/BYU], such that stress release/dispersion would have been focused on convex portion at the bilayer interface [Wang 2].
Further regarding claims 11-12, 14, 21, a polymer (second) layer (Fig. 14A [443]) can be thinner than an adhesive (third) layer (Fig. 14A [552]), which is smaller than the metal (third) layer (Fig. 14A [450]), wherein while a percentage range/value in relation to thickness is not taught, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions and the prior art device would not perform different than the claimed device, the claimed device is not patentably different. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Further regarding claim 23, an adhesive layer that bonds the same layers as set forth above should inherently comprise a similar/same tan delta within or near the claimed range.
Further regarding claims 27-28, a protective member may be further located on the back (All Figs. [P4]) and an adhesive member (All Figs. [P2]) connecting the foldable support to the display panel (All Figs. [430]) [0082].
Claims 11-12, 14-16, 21, & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim 2020 in view of Wang 1, Wang 2, BYU, and optionally Koyaizu, as applied to claim 1 above, even further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0208636 A1) (hereinafter “Kim 2021”) and Ha et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0061972 A1) (hereinafter “Ha”).
Regarding claims 11-12, 14-16, 21, and 24, (in the event that) a polyimide/plastic meeting the claimed conditions is not taught as recited above.
Kim 2021 evidences/teaches a foldable display device comprising an adhesive layer that directly adheres to a lower, supporting metal layer including within its holes therein, only having a reduced adhesive force in places not contacting the metal layer or the opposing adherend [0019-020, 0094] and the adhesive layer comprises a modulus of about 0.001 to about 0.250 MPa (1 kPa to 250 kPa) such that it can easily be filled into the holes in the metal layer [0073], such that permeation by external foreign particles can be prevented by the filled adhesive layer that also adheres to the layer thereabove, improving the reliability and flexibility of the device [0095].
However, particular layer thicknesses are not taught.
Ha teaches a foldable display device comprising a lower, supporting metal layer having an elastic modulus, having at least one additional layer adhered thereto by an adhesive/polymer layer [0055, 0060-0063, 0068, 0083-0084], wherein the adhesive force on an upper side is about 1000 gf/inch and on a lower side being 800 gf/inch, such that exfoliation from the metal layer during folding does not occur [0063, 0068], wherein the polymer layer preferably is a polyimide [0008], which is adhered to a metal layer via an adhesive layer in a thickness ratio of 1:1 to 1:5 [0066] and the metal layer having a thickness ratio of less than 1:3. However, as applied to the thicker perforated metal layer as recited above, and the adhesive layer at least partially filling the holes, the thickness ranges should be within or closer to the ranges as claimed.
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art for increased structural specifics [Ha] for an already used/desired functional layer for the same purpose of supporting a display device, providing improved reliability and flexibility of the device [Kim 2021].
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim 2020 in view of Wang 1, Wang 2, BYU, and optionally Koyaizu, as applied to claim 1 above, even further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0208636 A1) (hereinafter “Kim 2021”).
Regarding claims 25-26, filling the holes with adhesive is not taught by Kim 2020.
Kim 2021 evidences/teaches a foldable display device comprising an adhesive layer that directly adheres to a lower, supporting metal layer including within its holes therein, only having a reduced adhesive force in places not contacting the metal layer or the opposing adherend [0019-020, 0094] and the adhesive layer comprises a modulus of about 0.001 to about 0.250 MPa (1 kPa to 250 kPa) such that it can easily be filled into the holes in the metal layer [0073], such that permeation by external foreign particles can be prevented by the filled adhesive layer that also adheres to the layer thereabove, improving the reliability and flexibility of the device [0095].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the metal layer bonded to the layer thereabove via an adhesive layer that at least partially fills the holes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prevent permeation by external foreign particles that also adheres to the layer thereabove, improving the reliability and flexibility of the device [Kim 2021].
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim 2020 in view of Wang 1, Wang 2, BYU, and optionally Koyaizu, as applied to claim 1 above, even further in view of Jang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0153668 A1) (hereinafter “Jang”).
Regarding claims 27-28, in the event a protective layer is not taught as recited above:
Jang teaches foldable display device comprising at least one impact absorption layer below an elastic modulus containing back plate [0060, 0063], wherein providing the impact absorption film under the backplate reduces the damage to the display and/or touch panel [0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a foldable backplate with a protective layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a lower layer for additional impact absorption below the back plate/support layers [Jang; 0074].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 July 26th, 2026
Prosecution Insights